The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-04-16

learned and renowned Origen, who ap-
| peals to this passage as proof that
Jesus was not equal to the Father. AS
far back as his time, there was no arti-
Gle before God in this sentence and no
theory of mistake in transcribiDg is
suggested. Origen saw nothing in this
passage that was opposed to the rules
Of the language which he understood as
well as any man in his day. Others of
the early church took the same posi-
ton.
Of course, when John says the Word
was with the supreme God, and was a
god, he personifies Word and may
have had in his mind Wisdom (sophid);
which the author of Proverbs person
ifies in the same way. See chapter 8.
Nor need we attach any unusual mean
ing to Word, (Logos), to make it answer
his purpose. The great philosopher
Plato, has subordinate god in his sys-
tenn of the universe, with the name
Logos, but with quite different inter-
probation, and real being; not per-
sonified attribute. So had Philo, the
learned Jew of Alexandria, a LOqos,
the Jewish Messiah. But there is no
certainty or probability, perhaps, that
John had any knowledge of the Opin-
ions and speculations of these men
and it is certain that his Logos was not
the same as theirs, in definition or office.
| think he meant by logos, ,oord !;
and had in view the word of God, re-
ported in the first chapter of Genesis,
=. and the same beginning" there alluded
to. The word was this-God said,
''Let there be light" God said, ''Let
there be armament" God said, ''Let
US make man." ETC., etc. The Word
was with God, and was god for it
did the work of god. ''All things
were by him !" for this is the meaning
of the Greek "All things were made
by him." is without authority; for the
original for made has no such meaning.
But it will be said, eff all things
were by the Word, it must have been
the supreme God, and not an infe-
rior deity" This is plausible objec-
tion; but that such was not the inten-
tion of the author, is proved by two cir
cumstances taken from the passage it
self. 1. That the article is not before G cd.
2. The word by, in the clause ''by him, :"
is always employed before subordi-
nate agent, who acts under another
1t is did and not hupo; the latter being
always employed before aprimary agent
All variations from this rule are mis-
takes Of transcribers. Besides, the
-vsorss -tlsings sget hiassas
can only mean all things mentioned in
our account of creation, in Genesis !;
and no rational Interpretation can make
that account include any more than our
world, which is but small part of the
universe, so small part that Plato
thought its creation beneath the su-
preme Being and so he assigned it to
his second god," which he also called
the lOg0S.
There are few other instances, be-
sides the one we are noticing in this
chapter, in which the article is not
used before God, denoting the supreme
Being. These are either mistakes, or
they are examples in which it was not
thought necessary to keep the divine
supremacy in view.
2. The Article before Son of God. The
true status of Jesus, as Son of God, is
indicated by the article, before both
Son and God. But there are few in
stances in which his true status is not
recognized, but is by implication de-
MED. Hence, when the devil tempted
Jesus, he said to him, "If thou art a
son of God, command that these stones
become loaves." This is repeated sew
eral times, and always in the same way.
In the following passages, the article is
not used before Son, but before God,
Matt. iv. 8, 6; Mark i. 1; Luke iv. 8, 8;
Matt. xvii 40; John x. 36. OF course,
Satan used the expression, "a son of
Goo" purposely. That language merely
denotes a divine messenger. The same
in the other instances of this usage.
In the following passages the article
is omitted, both before son and god
A son Of god, is the language of pc.
lytheists; and such are generally the
persons to whom it is ascribed. See
Matt. xiv. 80; xvii. 43; Mark XIV. 80
Luke i. 35; John xix. 7. 1t might
have been expected, perhaps, that in
Luke l. 35. he would have been called
the son of the god; but that was left
for future development. And when the
Jews used this language, they wished il
understood that his claims were lowel
than they really were, and so lesser
their guilt in putting him to death
especially with those who thought hin
innocent.
8. The article and Son of Nan. Jesu
is called the Son of Man, about sixt.
times in the gospels, the article beinl
used before both son and man; ant
only once "a son of a man." This las
is a Hebraism for O man, and wa